Lately we’ve been discussing a lot of junk science in our blog. Discrediting the validity of junk sciences seems to be a recent trend.

An opinion editorial on dallasnews.com says forensic investigations need to weed out the junk science procedures. It describes the case of Michael Blair, who spent 14 years on death row for murder due to unreliable hair analysis.

Hair-fiber analysis involves taking a hair under a microscope and comparing it to another (i.e. the hair of a suspect compared to a hair found at the crime scene). However, since the start of this procedure there has been no set criteria in association nor any proof that the method works. A New York Times article from 2001 shared information on a study implemented on hair analysis. This statement grabbed my attention:

In the early 1970’s, the federal government sponsored a proficiency-testing program for 240 laboratories. The labs did so poorly on hair analysis that flipping a coin would have saved a great deal of time, at no cost to accuracy.

Based on the results, you’d think they’d have discontinued the use of the procedure three decades ago. Still, it was in use in 2001 when the Journal of the American Medical Association ran another study that came to the same conclusion. While today the technique is not completely disestablished, it is unfavorable and even the FBI has rejected it, replacing the method with the reputable hair DNA testing (which uses DNA from the hair as opposed to visual comparison).

Microscopic hair analysis and Comparative Lead Bullet Analysis (CBLA) are both junk sciences that have been nearly obliterated, with dog scent identification on its way out. Along with the study on fingerprint analysis, the faults of forensics are being exposed and replaced with new and more reliable methods. Hopefully in the near future we will have a forensic system that we can trust in.

Related posts:

1. Texas bill allows defendants to challenge their convictions based on junk science Per the Innocence Project’s blog today, “A bill passed by the Texas Senate this week would provide an avenue for...
2. The myths behind forensic science Popular Mechanics has published an article in their August 2009 issue on faulty forensics and its role in wrongful convictions....
3. Judge Overturns Jimmy Ates’ Conviction: Use of Junk Science Leads to Release Press ReleaseDecember 17, 2008 Today, pursuant to an agreement between the State and defense, First Judicial Circuit Judge William Stone...
4. The perils and pitfalls of forensic science Both the New York Times and TalkLeft took issue yesterday with the oft-unacknowledged imperfections in forensic science. The New York Times picks...
5. The Coverdell Grant Program for forensic science The Innocence Project in New York recently released a report titled, “Investigating Forensic Problems in the United States: How the...
6. Handwriting for lie detection? Research conducted at the University of Haifa concluded it may be possible to detect deception via handwriting. The method uses...